Science vs. Atheism

[Divine Insight]

[youtube][/youtube]

I agree with this view in general. I personally don't see science as supporting atheism actually.

Now it's true that I am extremely atheistic toward the Abrahamic religions. But not for scientific reasons. I reject those religions based on their own self-contradictions and absurdities. When it comes to spirituality in general I'm definitely open-minded and agnostic. I even intuitively lean toward the spiritual. Albeit confessing that I can't know it to be true.

I just thought I'd post this here to see how others view this topic.

So please share your views.

[Divine Insight]

My post was not directed at you.
I never argued that Math created everything from nothing. Your straw man was not needed. The Math merely explains how you can get everything from Nothing.

But it does no such thing. That is a false claim right there.

Math is nothing other than an observation of how an existing universe has quantitative properties. It says nothing about you could get everything from nothing. Unless you are going to claim that there exists some sort of Platonic mystical mathematical foundation for all of reality. But that itself is a mystical idea.

You have not watched the Krauss video, have you? He disagrees with your 'mystical' in that it does conflict with science.

Yes, I did watch the video you linked to, and I have already seen quite a few Krauss lecture on this same topic. I don't agree with everything Krauss says. He jumps to his own unwarranted conclusions quite often.

Why are you acting like Krauss should be accepted as the final word in this matter anyway? No all scientists would even agree with his views. And he certainly hasn't shown that anything can be started from Nothing. In fact, he even cheats and claims that "nothing" does not even mean the same thing it used to mean. He now uses the term "nothing" to refer to a space that has Quantum Properties.

That's hardly "nothing".

Did you even bother to watch his lecture?

You are assuming there was a cause for the start of the universe. That is begging the question fallacy.

Even Krauss suggested that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would "allow" for the universe to begin. As far as I'm concerned that would be a cause right there.

I did not pitch science vs religion. They are not even comparative, that is why I mentioned the process of getting to answers are different.

That's not true, you said: "How absurd, and clearly illogical. You therefore have to reject logic in order to hold a belief that this god can can exist inside/outside nothing. That is why science can say that there is no need for a god, besides there not being any evidence for god(s)."

You did indeed proclaim that these ideas are absurd and illogical. But the problem is that you haven't offered anything that isn't already equally absurd and illogical. A space that already has Quantum Properties is NOT starting from nothing.

Seems to me you are angry at science not showing your hateful Abrahamic deity false by having an evidenced based answer for everything from nothing (even when it seems like there is zero net energy - that is consistent with a universe from nothing. The logic and Math is in place, evidence is pointing to it, we just need more falsification and more evidence.).

I'm not angry with science in the least. I love science and consider myself to be a scientist. And I certainly don't need science to invalidate the Abrahamic deity. The Bible does a great job of that on its own.

Please go read the Krauss stuff and look at the math in detail. (We have used Math before to proof 1+1=2; who ever would have thought that.) And here you are building and beating your math straw man with me without even reviewing the math. You just want it to be your mystical when it is not.

I have reviewed the math my entire life. There is no math that can show how a universe can start from nothing. That's a totally false claim on your part.

You seem to have a total misunderstanding of science and mathematics and the interplay between them.

The mathematics of Quantum Theory can show how a universe can spring into existence from quantum fields. But that's not starting with nothing. Moreover, neither is this PURE mathematics. This is mathematics designed around the postulates of Quantum Theory. So it's Quantum Theory that is making this prediction, not mathematics.

Clearly I understand this picture far better than you do, and here you are suggesting that I should go study it more. I think you need to take your own advice on that one.

And now you are saying that the theology version is logical that something can exist outside /inside nothing before it created everything. So everything has a cause except for this something? How bizarre and illogical.

It's neither bizarre nor illogical. I do not require that everything has to have a cause. Causes are temporal phenomenon. Not only are they temporal but they also require entropic time. There is no need for entropic time in the quantum domain.

So my mystical philosophy is actually consistent with Quantum Theory. If it's bizarre and illogical it's only because this is the nature of the Quantum World.

My mystical philosophy isn't anymore bizarre than QM.

If you want to discuss this topic more then go read Krauss' book and watch the video lecture. Go read about Hawking no boundary proposal. Do the Math, show where it is wrong (since you claim you understand it all). Read about the other hypotheses or there for Everything from Nothing. Come back when we can chat about the facts, not your emotion.

I've already been there and done all of that. There is nothing wrong with those theories. You just aren't paying close attention to the postulates and assumptions that these physicists are putting into their theories to begin.

Like I say, go back and re-watch Krauss' lecture. He clearly states that he is NOT using the term "nothing" to mean "nothing" in the classical sense of the term. He uses the term "nothing" to mean "Empty Space" which allows to already have the full wealthy of Quantum Behavior.

So he's not starting with "nothing" he's starting with QM.

You're clearly just not paying attention to what I'm saying.

There is no conflict between my mystical philosophy and any known science. And I also KEEP TRACK of all the premises and postulates that these scientists use in their theories. Something you apparently don't bother to keep track of.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 98 by Divine Insight]

You could not have reviewed the math that quick. And your post is still full of emotion.

I can not take your post seriously when your opening line is an admittance of ignorance and a refusal to discuss the facts. (Did not even read the rest of your post since your opening destroyed it).

[Divine Insight]

You could not have reviewed the math that quick.

Excuse me?

I'm 64 years old. I've been reviewing the math for over a half a century.

You act like as if you have just presented me with something NEW.

Get over yourself.

I've been reading books and watching lectures by physicists and mathematicians like Krauss, Hawking, and others for decades.

They have not shown anything conclusive. Kruass is full of Krap when he proclaims that he can show how a universe can start from "nothing". All he does is use a cube of Quantum Mechanical space and claims that this is "nothing".

I can start a universe from "nothing" too if I'm allowed to start with Quantum Mechanics. That's NOT "nothing"

So I have already REVIEWED Krauss' case. And I disagree with his claim that he is actually staring with "nothing". He's starting with Quantum Mechanics.

And similarly Hawking himself confesses that if you give him quarks and gravity he too will create a universe from "nothing". Except the only problem is that quarks and gravity aren't "nothing".

So I've already REVIEWED both of these presentations, and I simply do not accept that either of these gentlemen are actually starting with "nothing".

They are both starting with Quantum Mechanics. And Hawking even requests to have gravity tossed in too.

At least Krauss uses the excuse that maybe someday we'll find a theory of Quantum Gravity that can be tossed into that original cube of Quantum Space.

But we clearly don't have that at this point. And even if we did. That cube of Quantum Mechanical Gravity-infested space would hardly be "nothing".

Sp Krauss is pulling your leg. He's not starting with "nothing". He's starting with QM. And a dream that we will someday also have a QR (Quantum Gravity).

Neither Hawking nor Kruass are truly starting with "nothing".

Hawking even ultimately admits this by asking the following question:

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking

Even Stephen Hawking is asking the same question I ask.

He's clearly not completely satisfied that mathematics predicts a universe can come into being from nothing.

Even if there are a bunch of rules, what breathe life into those rules and makes a universe for them to describe?

I'm totally ON BOARD with Stephen Hawking in this final question.

So what are you suggesting that I "review". I'm totally aware of what these physicist are proposing and I'm even aware of precisely what premises and assumptions they are assuming in their hypothesis.

You act like I'm ignorant of this stuff. But I suggest that you are the one who is not paying attention to the assumptions these guys are making in the premises of models.

You need to pay more attention to what their premises are.

Neither of them have created a model of a universe that actually starts from "nothing". And Krauss even confesses this in his own video.

Watch that video again and pay attention at 1:03.

He confesses that he is not using the term "nothing" to mean "nothing" in the classical sense. He's using the term "nothing" to mean a cube of empty space that has Quantum Properties of virtual particles already popping into and out of existence.

So he's not starting with "nothing", he's starting with Quantum Space.

PAY MORE ATTENTION to these lecture please. And you'll see that these guys are cheating.

[keithprosser3]

Enlighten me, DI - is your position that the cause of the BB (or however one might put it) is intrinsically inexplicable?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 98 by Divine Insight]

You could not have reviewed the math that quick. And your post is still full of emotion.

I can not take your post seriously when your opening line is an admittance of ignorance and a refusal to discuss the facts. (Did not even read the rest of your post since your opening destroyed it).

Moderator Comment

Please discuss arguments only. You are not obliged to reply to anyone and if the post is that bad it should be possible to explain why.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JohnA]

My post was not directed at you.
I never argued that Math created everything from nothing. Your straw man was not needed. The Math merely explains how you can get everything from Nothing.

But it does no such thing. That is a false claim right there.

Math is nothing other than an observation of how an existing universe has quantitative properties. It says nothing about you could get everything from nothing. Unless you are going to claim that there exists some sort of Platonic mystical mathematical foundation for all of reality. But that itself is a mystical idea.

You have not watched the Krauss video, have you? He disagrees with your 'mystical' in that it does conflict with science.

Yes, I did watch the video you linked to, and I have already seen quite a few Krauss lecture on this same topic. I don't agree with everything Krauss says. He jumps to his own unwarranted conclusions quite often.

Why are you acting like Krauss should be accepted as the final word in this matter anyway? No all scientists would even agree with his views. And he certainly hasn't shown that anything can be started from Nothing. In fact, he even cheats and claims that "nothing" does not even mean the same thing it used to mean. He now uses the term "nothing" to refer to a space that has Quantum Properties.

That's hardly "nothing".

Did you even bother to watch his lecture?

You are assuming there was a cause for the start of the universe. That is begging the question fallacy.

Even Krauss suggested that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would "allow" for the universe to begin. As far as I'm concerned that would be a cause right there.

I did not pitch science vs religion. They are not even comparative, that is why I mentioned the process of getting to answers are different.

That's not true, you said: "How absurd, and clearly illogical. You therefore have to reject logic in order to hold a belief that this god can can exist inside/outside nothing. That is why science can say that there is no need for a god, besides there not being any evidence for god(s)."

You did indeed proclaim that these ideas are absurd and illogical. But the problem is that you haven't offered anything that isn't already equally absurd and illogical. A space that already has Quantum Properties is NOT starting from nothing.

Seems to me you are angry at science not showing your hateful Abrahamic deity false by having an evidenced based answer for everything from nothing (even when it seems like there is zero net energy - that is consistent with a universe from nothing. The logic and Math is in place, evidence is pointing to it, we just need more falsification and more evidence.).

I'm not angry with science in the least. I love science and consider myself to be a scientist. And I certainly don't need science to invalidate the Abrahamic deity. The Bible does a great job of that on its own.

Please go read the Krauss stuff and look at the math in detail. (We have used Math before to proof 1+1=2; who ever would have thought that.) And here you are building and beating your math straw man with me without even reviewing the math. You just want it to be your mystical when it is not.

I have reviewed the math my entire life. There is no math that can show how a universe can start from nothing. That's a totally false claim on your part.

You seem to have a total misunderstanding of science and mathematics and the interplay between them.

The mathematics of Quantum Theory can show how a universe can spring into existence from quantum fields. But that's not starting with nothing. Moreover, neither is this PURE mathematics. This is mathematics designed around the postulates of Quantum Theory. So it's Quantum Theory that is making this prediction, not mathematics.

Clearly I understand this picture far better than you do, and here you are suggesting that I should go study it more. I think you need to take your own advice on that one.

And now you are saying that the theology version is logical that something can exist outside /inside nothing before it created everything. So everything has a cause except for this something? How bizarre and illogical.

It's neither bizarre nor illogical. I do not require that everything has to have a cause. Causes are temporal phenomenon. Not only are they temporal but they also require entropic time. There is no need for entropic time in the quantum domain.

So my mystical philosophy is actually consistent with Quantum Theory. If it's bizarre and illogical it's only because this is the nature of the Quantum World.

My mystical philosophy isn't anymore bizarre than QM.

If you want to discuss this topic more then go read Krauss' book and watch the video lecture. Go read about Hawking no boundary proposal. Do the Math, show where it is wrong (since you claim you understand it all). Read about the other hypotheses or there for Everything from Nothing. Come back when we can chat about the facts, not your emotion.

I've already been there and done all of that. There is nothing wrong with those theories. You just aren't paying close attention to the postulates and assumptions that these physicists are putting into their theories to begin.

Like I say, go back and re-watch Krauss' lecture. He clearly states that he is NOT using the term "nothing" to mean "nothing" in the classical sense of the term. He uses the term "nothing" to mean "Empty Space" which allows to already have the full wealthy of Quantum Behavior.

So he's not starting with "nothing" he's starting with QM.

You're clearly just not paying attention to what I'm saying.

There is no conflict between my mystical philosophy and any known science. And I also KEEP TRACK of all the premises and postulates that these scientists use in their theories. Something you apparently don't bother to keep track of.

This actually says that you are misrepresenting Krauass (similar how David Z. Albert did it as well):
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/p ... te/256203/

Even here do we have hawking again talking about the beginning (using math) and not needing something mystical.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of ... verse.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... verse.html

[Divine Insight]

This actually says that you are misrepresenting Krauass (similar how David Z. Albert did it as well):
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/p ... te/256203/

I'm sorry, but you're going to need to be more precise than to just point me to a huge article to read.

I started reading it and in the very early going it states the following:

In January, Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and Director of the Origins Institute at Arizona State University, published A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing, a book that, as its title suggests, purports to explain how something---and not just any something, but the entire universe---could have emerged from nothing, the kind of nothing implicated by quantum field theory.

Thus far, this is totally verifying my position; Kruass is not starting with "nothing" but rather he's starting with Quantum Field Theory, precisely as I had stated.

So if you think there is something else in the article you've pointed to that contradicts my positions, please quote that specific excerpt and I'll take a look at it.

Otherwise this article you've just pointed to vindicates my position, and shows that you are wrong to claim that I'm misrepresenting Kruass' claims.

Even here do we have hawking again talking about the beginning (using math) and not needing something mystical.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of ... verse.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... verse.html

And from that article,....

In order to understand the Origin of the universe, we need to combine the General Theory of Relativity with quantum theory.

That's not starting from nothing. It's starting with both General Relativity and Quantum Theory. Precisely as I had previously pointed out.

So you clearly aren't even comprehending my position.

Starting with Quantum Theory is NOT starting with NOTHING.

So my position holds. Both of these articles that you have provided back up my position precisely as I had stated.

~~~~~~~

Clearly you are not paying attention to the details.

Both Krauss and Hawking are starting with the assumption that Quantum Fields preexist the universe complete with all the physical laws that govern them.

That is NOT nothing.

And that's precisely what I had claimed.

So all you've done thus far is verify my position.

[JohnA]

This actually says that you are misrepresenting Krauass (similar how David Z. Albert did it as well):
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/p ... te/256203/

I'm sorry, but you're going to need to be more precise than to just point me to a huge article to read.

I started reading it and in the very early going it states the following:

In January, Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and Director of the Origins Institute at Arizona State University, published A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing, a book that, as its title suggests, purports to explain how something---and not just any something, but the entire universe---could have emerged from nothing, the kind of nothing implicated by quantum field theory.

Thus far, this is totally verifying my position; Kruass is not starting with "nothing" but rather he's starting with Quantum Field Theory, precisely as I had stated.

So if you think there is something else in the article you've pointed to that contradicts my positions, please quote that specific excerpt and I'll take a look at it.

Otherwise this article you've just pointed to vindicates my position, and shows that you are wrong to claim that I'm misrepresenting Kruass' claims.

Even here do we have hawking again talking about the beginning (using math) and not needing something mystical.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of ... verse.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... verse.html

And from that article,....

In order to understand the Origin of the universe, we need to combine the General Theory of Relativity with quantum theory.

That's not starting from nothing. It's starting with both General Relativity and Quantum Theory. Precisely as I had previously pointed out.

So you clearly aren't even comprehending my position.

Starting with Quantum Theory is NOT starting with NOTHING.

So my position holds. Both of these articles that you have provided back up my position precisely as I had stated.

~~~~~~~

Clearly you are not paying attention to the details.

Both Krauss and Hawking are starting with the assumption that Quantum Fields preexist the universe complete with all the physical laws that govern them.

That is NOT nothing.

And that's precisely what I had claimed.

So all you've done thus far is verify my position.

You are contradicting yourself now.
previously you said:

Why are you acting like Krauss should be accepted as the final word in this matter anyway? No all scientists would even agree with his views. And he certainly hasn't shown that anything can be started from Nothing. In fact, he even cheats and claims that "nothing" does not even mean the same thing it used to mean. He now uses the term "nothing" to refer to a space that has Quantum Properties.

A space that already has Quantum Properties is NOT starting from nothing.

So, above you say Krauss talks about a pre-exiting SPACE? And the article I pointed to you is where Krauss says he is not. How is that not contradicting yourself?

My question isn't concerned with how the energy/matter content of the universe can sum to zero, but rather what would have caused it fluctuation from non-zero in the first place? Obviously the laws of QM are pointed to as an explanation, but then where did those laws come from? And what was it that actually fluctuated?

Now you are saying that Krauss is using abstract objects (laws pf physics) to create fluctuations. That is just a poor understanding of science and a redundant argument from you.

The mathematics of Quantum Theory can show how a universe can spring into existence from quantum fields.

Really? Where is this math then? Can you share this? What on earth is a quantum field? We do not even talk about that in QM at all. You are confusing quantum field theory (QFT) being a theoretical framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of subatomic particles with your imaginary QUANTUM FIELD. That is just laughable. That alone showed me you know nothing about QM. You now changed this post to try and chance your previous posts, but you can not. It is too late, I have your post content. No wonder your posts are so full of contradictions.
Actually, I do not even want to respond anymore to you. I agree with your position of the Christian god(s), but that is about it. You lack of scientific knowledge is driving you to formulate your own dogma. Ironically that is exactly the thing you hammer Christians with. That is Ironic.

As far as I'm concerned we have no reason to believe that the quantum world is anything other than magical at this point in time. We certainly can't explain it logically. And the math doesn't explain it logically either. The math simply describes probabilities of potential. But like Richard Feynman has pointed out, "Nobody knows how it can be like that".

If the math describes it, how can it not be logical?

A space that already has Quantum Properties is NOT starting from nothing.

Krauss is not arguing to start or to have a space (quantum vacuum or whateva)? He says no space, no time, no particles, NOTHING. And he describes his logic with physics. If he can not describe it with physics then it can not be described scientifically anyway. You are basically saying that there is no logic that can describe it, therefore it is not possible, but it is mystical, not only that, but YOUR SPECIFIC mystical. That is absurd. (And Krauss said very clearly in his video that there is nothing mystical about the universe - YOU IGNORED THIS COMMENT FROM ME BEFORE TOO. Want me to send you the exact timing in his video where he said this - want more egg on your face?).

You have not reviewed the Hawking logic at all. Am still waiting for you tell us where it is wrong. You claim to KNOW all MATH, yet you refuse to convince us, to show us where the Hawking math is wrong. I am skeptical about your claims. It seems to me you just make them and run away when being questioned. WHERE IS THE Hawking MATH wrong? Point it out, tell us what mistake he made?

I have stated my case, given you sources, and you have not given anything. All you say is "dah, they are wrong".

Krauss has a logical argument for everything from nothing.
Hawking has math for his infinite finite universe.
Many other Scientists has the same (logical arguments and logic, and some evidence). Can you name them? Want me to name them and shame you more?

The Logic and math is in place. Some evidence is available already. Not all evidence has been examined, not all evidence agree with all these logical arguments. Based on the historical success of science it is inevitable and very probably that they will find an answer. The issue is that some of the evidence can not be shown false: you can not show it false, can you? I think that is what is upsetting you, plugging your emotions.

Religion has nothing, All they have is logical fallacies.
Mystical explanations is the same as religion's explanations. Say hi to your god for me.

[Divine Insight]

You are contradicting yourself now.
previously you said:

Why are you acting like Krauss should be accepted as the final word in this matter anyway? No all scientists would even agree with his views. And he certainly hasn't shown that anything can be started from Nothing. In fact, he even cheats and claims that "nothing" does not even mean the same thing it used to mean. He now uses the term "nothing" to refer to a space that has Quantum Properties.

A space that already has Quantum Properties is NOT starting from nothing.

So, above you say Krauss talks about a pre-exiting SPACE? And the article I pointed to you is where Krauss says he is not. How is that not contradicting yourself?

But the article you pointed to did no such thing.

It clearly stated that he IS starting with the kind of nothing implicated by quantum field theory

Here's the quote again, directly from that article:

In January, Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and Director of the Origins Institute at Arizona State University, published A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing, a book that, as its title suggests, purports to explain how something---and not just any something, but the entire universe---could have emerged from nothing, the kind of nothing implicated by quantum field theory.

I even highlighted it in RED.

Where in this article do you think he says otherwise? Moreover, if he does claim otherwise, then the article itself would be self-contradictory since it clearly states that he's starting with the kind of nothing implicated by quantum field theory

So what are you taking about. So far I have totally justified my position even using the articles you've pointed to.

My question isn't concerned with how the energy/matter content of the universe can sum to zero, but rather what would have caused it fluctuation from non-zero in the first place? Obviously the laws of QM are pointed to as an explanation, but then where did those laws come from? And what was it that actually fluctuated?

Now you are saying that Krauss is using abstract objects (laws pf physics) to create fluctuations. That is just a poor understanding of science and a redundant argument from you.

It's not. It's precisely what Quantum Mechanics predicts. It's the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle coupled with probabilities. And that's how they calculate it. I know how they calculate these things I used to these sort calculation myself years ago. It's just an application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle along with some assumptions of random probabilities.

The mathematics of Quantum Theory can show how a universe can spring into existence from quantum fields.

Really? Where is this math then? Can you share this?

It's called Quantum Mechanics, and can be found in a gazillion textbooks on the subject. I'm not about to try to teach you Quantum Mechanics in forum posts.

What on earth is a quantum field? We do not even talk about that in QM at all. You are confusing quantum field theory (QFT) being a theoretical framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of subatomic particles with your imaginary QUANTUM FIELD. That is just laughable. That alone showed me you know nothing about QM. You now changed this post to try and chance your previous posts, but you can not. It is too late, I have your post content. No wonder your posts are so full of contradictions.

You can't have a particle popping into existence in physics without QFT. How are you going to do that?

Actually, I do not even want to respond anymore to you. I agree with your position of the Christian god(s), but that is about it. You lack of scientific knowledge is driving you to formulate your own dogma. Ironically that is exactly the thing you hammer Christians with. That is Ironic.

You haven't shown where anything can be started from NOTHING without using QM or QFT or BOTH.

So it appears to me that you don't have a leg to stand on.

As far as I'm concerned we have no reason to believe that the quantum world is anything other than magical at this point in time. We certainly can't explain it logically. And the math doesn't explain it logically either. The math simply describes probabilities of potential. But like Richard Feynman has pointed out, "Nobody knows how it can be like that".

If the math describes it, how can it not be logical?

All the math describe is probabilities. Moreover, those probabilities DEMAND that things must happen that defy logic.

What are you trying to claim? That someone has an perfectly logical explanation for the behavior of the quantum phenomenon? How about pointing me to that article. That might be interesting to read. Although I've read quite a few articles that claim to achieve that goal when in fact they don't. I think David Bohm has given the best attempt to date, but his description requires that you accept non-locality, and many people do not accept that non-locality is logical.

A space that already has Quantum Properties is NOT starting from nothing.

Krauss is not arguing to start or to have a space (quantum vacuum or whateva)? He says no space, no time, no particles, NOTHING.

The both the article you pointed to, and the video of Krauss lecturing himself both reveal that he is indeed starting with Quantum properties. So what you just said here is simply not true.

And he describes his logic with physics. If he can not describe it with physics then it can not be described scientifically anyway.

But the physics he's using is quantum physics and presumes that all of laws and properties of a quantum space are already in place. That's not starting from NOTHING.

You are basically saying that there is no logic that can describe it, therefore it is not possible, but it is mystical, not only that, but YOUR SPECIFIC mystical. That is absurd.

I don't have a "specific mystical". I'm not arguing for any mysticism. All I saying is that these scientist who claim to be able to start a universe from Nothing are being less then honest. They are starting with the assumptions of both Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory and that's not NOTHING. So they are being dishonest.

(And Krauss said very clearly in his video that there is nothing mystical about the universe - YOU IGNORED THIS COMMENT FROM ME BEFORE TOO. Want me to send you the exact timing in his video where he said this - want more egg on your face?).

Just because Krauss made this claim doesn't make it true. Krauss isn't God.

Who is Krauss to say whether or not there is anything mystical about quantum phenomenon?

He's already pretending that it's "NOTHING" and now he's pretending that he can say with certainly that there is nothing mystical about it.

He's out of line on both counts. And I'd love nothing more than to discuss this with him personally.

You have not reviewed the Hawking logic at all. Am still waiting for you tell us where it is wrong. You claim to KNOW all MATH, yet you refuse to convince us, to show us where the Hawking math is wrong.

Where did I ever claim that he was wrong? I didn't.

On the contrary I said "Give me QM and GR to start with and I'll create a universe for you too"

All I pointed out is that Hawking also begins with these things, and I highlighted that as well directly from the article that you linked to:

Here it is again:

From that article,....

"In order to understand the Origin of the universe, we need to combine the General Theory of Relativity with quantum theory."

Hawking too openly admits that he's starting with all the assumptions and postulates of QM and GR.

I am skeptical about your claims. It seems to me you just make them and run away when being questioned. WHERE IS THE Hawking MATH wrong? Point it out, tell us what mistake he made?

He made no mistake at all, and I never claimed that he did.

I simply pointed out that he starts with SOMETHING and not NOTHING.

I have stated my case, given you sources, and you have not given anything. All you say is "dah, they are wrong".

I'm saying that YOU are not PAYING ATTENTION to the details of what these gentlemen are openly admitting that they are actually starting with.

Krauss has a logical argument for everything from nothing.

Except his NOTHING is not really NOTHING. He's allowing for the preexistence of Quantum Field Theory.

How many times do I need to post this.

Here it is one more time directly from the article you pointed to:

"the kind of nothing implicated by quantum field theory"

Krauss is starting with Quantum Field Theory assumed to already be true and functional. He confesses this himself if you PAY ATTENTION to the details of his lectures and articles.

So I'm not accusing him of anything he doesn't already own up to in the FINE PRINT. But in the TITLE of his lectures and articles he claims to be able to show how a universe can start from NOTHING. Starting with Quantum Field Theory already in place is not starting from NOTHING.

It's slight-of-hand deception that he's pulling on people. He is honest enough to confess this in details and the fine print, but he's quick to sweep it under the carpet like as if it's not big deal. He even says, "We need to change what we mean by NOTHING, it's called learning and education".

That's just a cop-out. He's not starting with NOTHING, he's starting with SOMETHING.

Hawking has math for his infinite finite universe.

And I have no problem with Hawking's math.

But here's what Hawking is starting with:

In order to understand the Origin of the universe, we need to combine the General Theory of Relativity with quantum theory.

He's not staring with NOTHING either.

Many other Scientists has the same (logical arguments and logic, and some evidence). Can you name them? Want me to name them and shame you more?

You aren't about to shame me unless you can come up with a scientist who isn't already starting with QM or GR.

Good luck with that.

The Logic and math is in place. Some evidence is available already. Not all evidence has been examined, not all evidence agree with all these logical arguments. Based on the historical success of science it is inevitable and very probably that they will find an answer. The issue is that some of the evidence can not be shown false: you can not show it false, can you? I think that is what is upsetting you, plugging your emotions.

The evidence that is already available is that Quantum Fields must be far more than just a human invention of abstraction if they can bring a physical universe into being.

And that is all that needs to be true for my point to stand.

Apparently you just aren't grasping my actual position if you are still arguing against my position.

Religion has nothing, All they have is logical fallacies.
Mystical explanations is the same as religion's explanations. Say hi to your god for me.

Your paranoia of a mystical reality is no concern of mine.

Everything I have pointed out in our discussion thus far as been TRUE, and I've even verified it using articles that YOU linked to.

All that is left not is for you to understand this conversation and realize that everything I have claimed up to this point about both Kruass and Hawking is indeed TRUE.

I think Hawking is a bit more open about starting with QM and GR. Kruass pretends that he's actually starting with NOTHING whilst playing down in the fine print that his "Nothing" is actually QFT.

Everything I've said this far has been correct and true.

Now it's just a matter whether or not you're willing to own up to it.

[keithprosser3]

In a sentence, if possible, what is the mystical explanation of the origin of the universe?